Exposing the paparazzi

‘You have to love the stars to be in this business’

Britney Spears, left, Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton have provided more press material than anyone in Hollywood history, according to the woman behind tinseltown’s most successful paparazzi agency.

Brandy Navarre is the most important Hollywood personality you’ve never heard of. That’s because her life is behind the camera, not in front of it. Navarre runs Hollywood’s most successful paparazzi agency.

Brandy and husband, Regis, entered the paparazzi world 10 years ago, when Regis realized photographing celebrities was more lucrative than his job as a correspondent for Agence France-Presse. Today, their agency, X17, employs nearly 70 photographers, far more than any other organization. “You have to love the stars in order to be in this business,” says Brandy, a former Reuters TV reporter. “But what has made us so successful is that we almost befriend them.”
The Navarres have used this tactic with close to every Hollywood celebrity; Brandy claims only Woody Harrelson dislikes them.

“If we see a blond woman in an expensive car we look more closely, and if she turns out to be a celebrity we introduce ourselves. I usually say something like, ‘We will be following you a bit, but it’s nothing to worry about,’” explains X17 photographer Daniel Ramos.

Ramos was one of the X17 photographers who staked out the hair salon where Britney Spears shaved her head. It was his car she hit with the umbrella afterwards.

On X17’s website, www.X17online.com, 300,000 visitors view the latest celebrity shots every day. Brandy has seen the paparazzi business change fundamentally during the past few years. “Now people are following celebrities like the ultimate reality show. The truth is stranger and more entertaining than fiction.”

With Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan — Hollywood’s reigning bad-girl triumvirate — the truth is strange indeed. “Sometimes they’re friends. Sometimes they hate each other. Sometimes they don’t wear underwear. They get arrested for drunk driving. These three women have provided more material for the public than anything in the history of Hollywood,” observes Brandy.

In this age of around-the-clock celebrity coverage, paparazzi have become a real authority. “Britney’s downward spiral isn’t important news, but people are interested”, says Brandy. “War photos used to get people’s attention. Now it’s celebrities.”

Hugh Grant victory deals paparazzi blow

Paparazzi photographers have been dealt a second blow in little over a week as the actor Hugh Grant wins damages for invasion of privacy while on holiday.

Grant (pictured) won a High Court settlement totalling £58,000 in a legal battle brought jointly with his former partner Liz Hurley and her husband Arun Nayar, according to Reuters news agency.

They took action against Big Pictures (UK) Ltd and France-based Eliot Press SARL over photos shot last year while the three claimants were on holiday at a private resort in the Maldives. The images were subsequently published in tabloid newspapers.

They claimed they had chosen the resort for the privacy and seclusion it offered.

Associated Newspapers and News Group Newspapers will also contribute to the compensation payout.

Speaking after the ruling Jonathan Coad, media lawyer at Swan Turton solicitors, told Amateur Photographer: 'These are very hard days for the paparazzi and companies like Big Pictures whose business model is coming under threat.' He added: 'The wind is blowing against them.'

Coad believes it is significant that the courts now pay larger amounts in such privacy cases - as opposed to a few thousand pounds - after taking into account the profits earned from the publication of such pictures.

The news comes just eight days after Harry Potter author JK Rowling won a Court of Appeal ruling that allows her to ban future publication of a paparazzi picture of her son David.

Paparazzi Make SJP Feel Dirty

Sarah Jessica Parker says getting followed by the paps makes her feel dirty. That's one way to put it! She says she feels like NYC's town trollop because they're always at every corner trying to get a shot of her.

She says the "thug" photographers have definitely made an impact on her family's lives. That's probably why we never see little James!

SJP says, "I feel very ashamed. I feel like I'm, like, the town trollop. It makes me feel ashamed of my work. And I'm not. But I'm attached to this culture now in a way that it's kind of vulgar.

"And I feel cheapened. And I feel like I'm cheapening the school, like I'm bringing dirt; like I'm bad for the neighborhood."

That's so sad! It makes you realize just how normal celebs can be, and that all they want sometimes is to have a normal life.

Sienna's paparazzi rage: Miss Miller attacks photgrapher with her handbag

Despite making a concerted bid for fame in Hollywood - Sienna Miller doesn't seem to like all that comes with it.

The actress took a swing at a photographer with her designer handbag as she walked through Los Angeles airport yesterday.

The 26-year-old felt one of the snappers had got a little too close for comfort and yelled expletives as she lunged at him.

Snap: Sienna Miller lost her temper at LAX airport yesterday

Designer weapon: the actress took a swipe at a pesky photographer with her pink tote as she made her way thorugh the terminal

Perhaps she has been taking tips from her boyfriend Rhys Ifans, who has a reputation for being rather cranky with the paparazzi.

Luckily for the snapper the bag didn't contain anything heavy and he simply laughed at the furious Factory Girl as airport security stepped in to help.

A day earlier the actress caught up with Matthew Rhys, her costar in the upcoming Dylan Thomas biopic The Edge Of Love.

Rowling wins landmark ruling over paparazzi

HARRY Potter author JK Rowling won a landmark privacy ruling yesterday in her battle to ban further publication of a long-lens photograph taken of her son when he was 18 months old.

Rowling's lawyers said the ruling was likely to have a "profound effect" on certain sections of the paparazzi.

The author claimed her son David's right to privacy had been infringed after photographs of him were taken in an Edinburgh street while being pushed in a buggy by his parents.

The action was intended to protect David's rights to privacy and family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The initial claim by Rowling and her husband was thrown out by a London court last year, prompting the couple to appeal. But yesterday, in a key finding, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the media, so too should the child of a famous parent."

The disputed photos, taken on 8 November, 2004, were published in a Sunday Express magazine, prompting Rowling, 42, and her husband to sue Express Newspapers and the Big Pictures photo agency, and seek to block further publication.

The Express settled the claim, but last August Nicholas Patten, a High Court judge, threw out the case against the agency.

In a statement, the parents said: "We embarked on this lawsuit not because we were seeking special privileges for our children but because we wanted them to grow up, like their friends, free from unwarranted intrusion into their privacy.

"We understand and accept that with the success of Harry Potter there will be a measure of legitimate media and public interest in Jo's professional activities and appearances.

"However, we have striven to give our children a normal family life outside the media spotlight."

They said the ruling would give their children protection from "covert, unauthorised photography" and make an "immediate and material difference to their lives".

Keith Schilling of Schillings law firm, representing Rowling's family, predicted the latest ruling could have a "profound effect ... on certain sections of the paparazzi. He said: "This case establishes a law of privacy for children in those cases where, understandably, the parents wish to protect their children from intrusive photography by the paparazzi. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the media will welcome it."

Big Pictures will have to pay the bulk of the costs of the case, estimated at £600,000.

Last night, a spokesman for Schillings confirmed an appeal by Big Pictures, which had advance notice of the ruling, had been rejected. It can now appeal to the Lords.

Philip Schlesinger, professor of cultural policy at the University of Glasgow, said: "The bottom line is that children should not get clobbered because their parents are celebrities.

"However, despite establishing a principle, there will be a lot of grey areas ahead, especially when the children become teenagers and are doing the sort of things which would make good photographs."

In 2001, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld an invasion of privacy complaint by Rowling after photographs of her daughter Jessica, then aged eight and on holiday in Mauritius, appeared in OK! magazine.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? – A LAWYER WRITES

MEDIA lawyers said yesterday's ruling by the Court of Appeal was a major case establishing children's right to privacy.

This ruling is putting into law what is already in the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice, voluntarily, in relation to children.

Newspapers are aware of paragraph 6 (v) which states: "Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child's private life."

We are now prohibited from taking pictures of children without consent – all the court has done is impose a rule of law on this.

One of the things the court looked at was the circumstances of this case. I believe the agency had sat outside Rowling's house for two days because they knew there was a professional market for that image.

The paparazzi would have known in advance that JK Rowling did not want this picture taken and they could easily have pixelated it.

But it's arguable whether someone taking a snap in the street on their mobile phone will fall foul of the law and it will depend on the circumstances of each case.

What this case says, quite simply, is that there is a right to privacy. The judge at first instance thought the parents were trying to protect themselves when it actually concerned their children.

However, if you are a celebrity such as Jordan and you brandish your child, it will be very difficult to contend that child has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

But those celebrities who don't pose for pictures will have the right to complain.

MET COSTUME GALA- THE OSCARS IN NYC!

MET Costume Gala
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 8pm
May 5, 2008

Shooting this event is like being a kid in a candy story... everywhere you look there are goodies to be had!

As a general rule, if the PR hand out a tip sheet to their event, and it has the names of way to many A-List celebrities, the event will probably be lackluster.

The Costume Gala is the only event in NYC where they hand you a 6 page tip sheet, with everyone in the A-list world on it, and they ALL SHOW UP!

By 6pm, the press were staged and lined up to go into the tent that covered the MET's stairs where the arrivals are held. It takes about a half hour to get everyone in place. By the time the last person is positioned, the talent already begins to arrive... and it doesn't stop for 1 1/2 hours!!! A non-stop, continuous barrage of talent ranging from sports stars, fashion insiders to hollywoods top stars.

The events first big name to arrive was Julia Roberts with George Clooney, and grew from there... Tom Cruise and Kate Holmes, Posh and David Beckham, Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, Eva Longoria, Gisele, Hilary Duff, Jennifer Connelly, Kate Bosworth, Scarlett Johansson, Misha Barton, Naomi Watts, John Mayer, Eva Mendes, Christina Ricci, Ashley and Mary Kate Olsen... and they just keep coming.

The phrase that pays the following day is "What time did you get to sleep after doing your edits?"

My time was 5:30am if you care to know....

Tampa Bay Times photographer assaulted

ST. PETERSBURG -- A photographer for Tampa Bay Times was beaten and robbed Monday night near the Vintage Ultra Lounge in downtown St. Petersburg, where he had gone to cover a celebrity's birthday party.

Luis Santana, 25, learned that hip-hop artists Chris Brown and Rihanna were celebrating Brown's 19th birthday at a private party in St. Petersburg. He talked to the Vintage security and was told he could take photographs outside, Santana said.

When he photographed Brown in a black Excursion or Expedition limousine, security guards for the celebrities chased him and forced him to the ground, Santana said. One guard put his knee on Santana's jaw and when he tried to push it away, the guards took his camera, worth about $3,000.

Santana said he has abrasions and bruises on his chest, back and arms.

"I’ve shot many many celebrities and this was just another notch on my belt," Santana said. "Then it just turned sour."

Police said there could be four male suspects who are bodyguards, but their names are unknown. The suspects left the scene in the limousine.

James Guttridge, manager of Vintage Ultra Lounge, said the club instructs security personnel not to get involved in altercations that happen outside the club. Guttridge said guards do not have the authority to prohibit photographers from shooting pictures outside the club, on the public right-of-way.

"Our only concern is what happens inside here," Guttridge said.

Rihanna opened for Kanye West at the Ford Amphitheatre earlier that night. Guttridge said a Vintage VIP invited Rihanna to come to the club while backstage at the show. He declined to comment on whether the club gave Rihanna a discount or paid for her to appear.

Guttridge called the incident "unfortunate" and said he hopes celebrities will feel welcome in St. Petersburg, but also doesn't want residents to be turned off.

Santana took photos of Rihanna at International Plaza on Monday afternoon (including the photo shown here), and said bodyguards resisted his presence there.

How Much Money Do the Paparazzi Make?

INFDaily.com

I've got a question for you: How much do the paparazzi really make?
—Taylor, Minnesota

The biggest money comes from exclusive shots of international stars—Brangelina, Johnny Depp—going about their everyday A-list business. Good photos can sell over and over again, from South America to Australia, earning a smart paparazzo up to $500,000 yearly.

Mediocre paparazzi, however, make about as much as a school guidance counselor. They scrape along on common, $250-a-pop photos of Britney or Lauren Conrad. They're the guys always "chasing" Heidi Montag, snapping away as she grimaces through "romances" and "feuds."

On very rare occasions, there's a jackpot photo, a six-figure photo, one that every paparazzo wants. Right now, that one superphoto is...can you guess?

Why, it's the first picture of Brangelina's unborn, of course!

"If it isn't a setup shot," supposes veteran photographer Brad Elterman of Buzz Foto, "and they were strolling down the street with the kids, and it's exclusive and the first, you're talking easily a million bucks for the U.S. rights alone."

Overseas markets could bring in a few more mil, Elterman adds.

Then again, the incipient Brangie baby may already have an exclusive first-sitting deal with People magazine à la Shiloh and J.Lo's Max and Emme. So a dream payday for a paparazzo in that case is highly unlikely.

"A lot of being a good paparazzo is luck," explains Gary Morgan of Splash News. "It's nine hours of boredom and 30 seconds of excitement."

And many, many days tracking the totally authentic exploits of Speidi.

Tribeca Film Festival Vanity Flop Party

Vanity Fair Party
Supreme Court House, 7p
April 22, 2008

Now I know why they don't send out a tip sheet for this event. If Vanity Fair did send one out, no press would show up. This event has fallen off over the last few years, but this year was by far the worst.

Every year it's the same people: Bowie/Iman, McEnroe, Regis... uggghh! Here's a tip for VF, change your invitation list and maybe other people will show up!

When the biggest surprise at the event is that DeNiro actually posed for photos, you know something's wrong...

Britney Spears' Paparazzi Ex Stabbed

Adnan Ghalib, Britney Spears former boy toy, has been attacked and stabbed by an unidentified assailant. Apparently the 36-year-old U.K. born paparazzo received a big shiner, facial lacerations and a stab wound to his arm when he was attacked in LA on Saturday night.

Various reports have stated that Ghalib received medical attention and is doing "all right" following the ordeal. Several papers have reported that Ghalib has been receiving a number of death threats in the past few weeks, but no one knows yet if this incident is connected.

If one checks out the gossip blogs, there are a lot of vitriolic words spewing out about Adnan. And someone may have decided to take action and make their hate real. The list of likely suspects seems long, with Ghalib’s ex-wife and Sam Lutfi both fierce Adnan haters. The LA County Sheriff and the LAPD don’t have a record of the incident though, and Adnan Ghalib hasn’t given an official statement about the incident yet.

Adnan Ghalib and Britney Spears went their separate ways after they had a confrontation about his cheating on her. Spears peaked at his iPhone and saw text messages from another woman. They had a huge argument, and then she tossed his cell phone in the pool. At least Britney Spears had the smarts to get rid of a guy who would cheat on her. Just recently, a true gentleman, Adnan Ghalib had been telling his pals that he slipped “one by the goalie”. Real class.

One of his friends reportedly told Star, “Britney is Adnan's dream come true. He knows that if he has a child with Brit, he'll be made for life.” Let’s hope for Brit's sake that her steers clear of that one from now on.

Paparazzi Accused of Supplying Drugs to Heath Ledger

A lawsuit issued Friday accuses a photo agency of supplying Ledger’s drugs in 2006 in order to take pictures of him using.

A lawsuit was filed Friday against the Los Angeles-area Splash News & Picture Agency for allegedly supplying actor Heath Ledger with cocaine two years ago in order to secretly videotape him using the drug, according to Reuters. Footage of the Ledger encounter, aired briefly after the young actor’s death in January, prompted an outcry in Hollywood.

The lawsuit claimed the video has generated more than $1 million in revenues through illegal paparazzi activity. California state law requires paparazzi to disgorge such profits.

Ledger, who died of an accidental overdose on prescription drugs in his New York apartment on January 22, was widely reported to have struggled with substance abuse. The plaintiff of the lawsuit is anonymous, referred to as Jane Doe, the former freelance reporter for People Magazine.

Reuters reports that she claims to have been an unwitting accomplice to the two photographers that paid for Ledger’s cocaine, one of whom she was dating at the time.

Her attorney was quoted as saying, “This is bad stuff. You don’t give drug addicts drugs so you can then tape them.”

L.A. police chief says paparazzi law unenforceable

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Los Angeles police chief on Tuesday said a proposed new city law aimed at protecting celebrities from aggressive paparazzi would be ambiguous and impossible to enforce.

Chief William Bratton said in a report that existing laws on jaywalking, speeding and assault could be used to deter aggressive photographers, whose 'round-the-clock pursuit of singer Britney Spears and other celebrities prompted calls for a crackdown.

Los Angeles councilman Dennis Zine proposed creating a "personal safety zone" to regulate paparazzi shortly after city police in January spent $25,000 to escort Spears from her home across town to a psychiatric unit in the middle of the night.

The police said roadblocks and an escort by at least a dozen motorcycles and squad cars were needed to prevent photographers from documenting what became the second trip by the troubled pop star to the hospital in a month.

The ploy instead gave news helicopters and the world media lengthy television pictures of the Spears' convoy.

Zine, a former police officer, said the Los Angeles paparazzi were becoming increasingly aggressive and posed a danger both to Hollywood stars and members of the public.

Celebrities like Spears and Paris Hilton are staked out 24 hours a day, and sometimes pursued in high speed car chases by dozens of paparazzi whose numbers in Los Angeles have swelled to between 300-400 from about 25 some 15 years ago.

Zine suggested creating a minimum "personal safety zone" of several feet of clear space between paparazzi and the individuals they are photographing. The proposed law has yet to be debated by the city council.

Bratton said however that the proposal raised questions about who is classified as a "celebrity" or "paparazzo," whether the LAPD is showing favoritism toward stars and whether the general public is entitled to the same protection.

He said it would "create an inequitable and ambiguous code that would likely be unenforceable."

Zine called Bratton's comments premature and vowed to pursue his proposal.

"We need specific sections (of the law) dealing with the paparazzi," Zine told reporters.

"What do we do the next time Britney Spears has to go to the hospital? Do we spend another $25,000 and (deploy) those police resources that are stretched so far?," he said.

An inquest in London ruled on Monday that Britain's Princess Diana and her lover Dodi al-Fayed were unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of their chauffeur and paparazzi photographers pursuing them into a Paris road tunnel 10 years ago.

Los Angeles police recommend against law restricting paparazzi

LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles Police Department is recommending that the City Council scrap a proposal to create a new law limiting activities of paparazzi around celebrities.

Cmdr. Kirk Albanese told the city Police Commission today that enough laws are in place to restrict photographers if their behavior around celebrities creates a safety problem, and the proposed law would be unfair and hard to enforce.

Among the proposals is creation of so-called personal safety zones around celebrities.

The civilian Police Commission voted to approve the recommendation and forward it to the City Council.

Jury blames driver, paparazzi for Princess Diana's death

LONDON A coroner's jury ruled today that Princess Diana and boyfriend Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed through the reckless actions of their driver and the paparazzi in 1997.

The jury had been told that a verdict of unlawful killing would mean that they believed the reckless behavior of the driver and paparazzi amounted to manslaughter. It was the most serious verdict available to them.

The couple died in Paris when their speeding car slammed into a concrete pillar while it was being chased by photographers in cars and on motorbikes. The jury added that the fact that Diana and Dodi were not wearing seatbelts was a contributing factor.

The coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, had instructed the jury that there was no evidence to support claims by Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, that the couple were victims of a murder plot directed by Prince Philip and carried out by British secret agents. The jury was not at liberty to disagree.

The six women and five men on the jury began deliberating April 2 after hearing six months of testimony from more than 240 witnesses. They also went to Paris to see the scene of the Aug. 31, 1997 crash.

The cost of the inquest itself, including lawyers and staff assisting the coroner, has exceeded $6 million.

Baker had expressed hope that the inquest would lay to rest, once and for all, any false theories about the princess' death.

Dodi Fayed died instantly when the couple's Mercedes, moving in excess of 60 mph, slammed into a concrete pillar in the Alma underpass in Paris at 12:22 a.m. Medics initially thought Diana would survive her severe injuries, but she died at a hospital around 4 a.m.

The paparazzi who pursued the couple were vilified. As grieving Britons piled up flowers outside Diana's Kensington Palace home, some British newspapers declared they would never use another paparazzi shot — a vow that proved time-limited.

French police announced a day after the crash that tests on driver Henri Paul's blood showed he was three times over the national drunk-driving standard.